Pentagon Blocked Cheney's Attack on Iran?

Pentagon Blocked Cheney's Attack on Iran?

www.atimes.com

WASHINGTON - Pentagon officials firmly opposed a proposal by Vice President Dick Cheney last summer for airstrikes against the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) bases by insisting that the administration would have to make clear decisions about how far the United States would go in escalating the conflict with Iran, according to a former George W Bush administration official.

J Scott Carpenter, who was then deputy assistant secretary of state in the State Department's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, recalled in an interview that senior Defense Department (DoD) officials and the Joint Chiefs used the escalation issue as the main argument against the Cheney proposal.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Hmmm, so is THIS the reason that General Fallon was forced to resign as head of CENCOM? Because he wouldn't go along with that maniac Insaney's plans to strike Iran unprovoked? I don't trust the Pentagon as a whole, as they have shown what a bunch of liars they are (pundit program) just like this admin, but it at least appears that there are (or were) a few that were willing to think logically, and not just rush in and "shoot first, ask questions later" as seems to be the status quo with our ever idiotic gov...

I just hope that Fallon out of the way and Cheney's "yes-man" Petraeus now at the helm that they don't prevail in starting this next disaster up that they have been foaming at the mouth over...

At that point, Fallon was in a position to deter any effort to go around DoD and military opposition to such a strike because he controlled all military access to the region as a whole. But Fallon's forced resignation in March and the subsequent promotion of Petraeus to become Centcom chief later this year gives Cheney a possible option to ignore the position of his opponents in Washington once more in the final months of the administration.

www.atimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective
Hmmm, so is THIS the reason that General Fallon was forced to resign as head of CENCOM?

Uhh, no. He already gave his reasons for his resignation.

Because he wouldn't go along with that maniac Insaney's plans to strike Iran unprovoked?

Again, no.

I don't trust the Pentagon as a whole, as they have shown what a bunch of liars they are (pundit program) just like this admin, but it at least appears that there are (or were) a few that were willing to think logically, and not just rush in and "shoot first, ask questions later" as seems to be the status quo with our ever idiotic gov...

Now you are saying that the military is a bunch of liars? All of them?

At that point, Fallon was in a position to deter any effort to go around DoD and military opposition to such a strike because he controlled all military access to the region as a whole. But Fallon's forced resignation in March and the subsequent promotion of Petraeus to become Centcom chief later this year gives Cheney a possible option to ignore the position of his opponents in Washington once more in the final months of the administration.

That is just plain stupid. A member of the military would have followed orders or been relieved. Fallon could not have done anything to prevent it if they had ordered it. If he refused the order he would have been relieved on the spot and his deputy ordered to carry out the attacks.

What ever happened to folks doing a little research around here?

How in the world could the U.S. possibly go an extensive offensive strike against any other country at this time. Our troops are worn and overextended as it is.

Unless, Cheney and Bush intend on reinstating the draft, I don't see how they're going to find the warm bodies to reinvigorate the military.

DD,

I have reservations about all reporting sourced to the McClatchy News company, which seems, in my opinion, to be dangerously close to being another US government 'News source', ala 'Faux news'.

I wouldn't argue that the piece is newsworthy, and merits attention. But I would hope I'm not the only one who has noticed the tendency for the McClatchy articles to have particularly 'good' timing and often 'unique' sourcing offered by reporters and editors who at one point or another worked for the government.

Maybe I'm just being too picky.

I think this is the REAL reason that Admiral William Fallon was forced to resign, and the two Air Force Generals also. In the years to come, I predict that when the truth comes out... it was our Military leaders who by questioning an "improper order", prevented WWIII.

It might be a conspiracy... but stared and flagged!!

reply to post by maria_stardust


i think the plan was to send in the hot heads on the first wave
prmote war go in and fight it.

jks aside
as many Bush supporters have said the US has only used a fraction of its force on Iraq and has Millions of people ready for action and so on
to attack a country worse off then a third world country was just a walk in the park

[edit on 9-6-2008 by bodrul]

Ummm, Excuse me???? What moron came up with this scenario?? THE VICE PRESIDENT HAS NO POWER TO ORDER ANY MILITARY ACTION. [snip]. If you hate Bush that much fine, but stop blaming every damn problem in this world on the President. The world does not work that way. If it did, this forum would NOT exist!

Zindo



Mod Edit - Removed Insulting Remark.

Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 9-6-2008 by elevatedone]

reply to post by COOL HAND



CH,

I think its been pretty well reported that the ousting of Adm. Fallon from Centcom was due to his continous head butting with DoD and White House foreign policy people.

I know what he has been saying of late, but the other stuff was pretty well reported too.

Originally posted by Bunch
CH,
I think its been pretty well reported that the ousting of Adm. Fallon from Centcom was due to his continous head butting with DoD and White House foreign policy people.

No, there is more to it.

I know what he has been saying of late, but the other stuff was pretty well reported too.

Really, then why has no one bothered to look at the possibility that his resignation was related to his failure to prevent foregin forces from interferring in Iraq?

LINK

reply to post by ZindoDoone


To be fair to the OP, the article only states that Cheny proposed the idea of Airstrikes, which I am sure he can do as much as he likes. I am sure he would also have "proposed" such a thing after discussions with his boss, who told him to go and figure it out.

The article states that pentagon opposition to strikes was the reason the proposal was dropped. There is no mention of the VP "ordering" anyone to attack anyone.

reply to post by COOL HAND


Well that's exactly the core of the issue here, how to proceed with the issue of foreign interference in Iraq by proxy Iranian parties and agencies.

If there is no clear guidance on how to deal with the issue then at the end you are probably going to end up sacrificing more lives.

Its a difficult situation because I will believe that our top military leaders would want to protect us as much as they can but without no clear instructions on how to proceed with the matter I don't think there is much they can do, don't you think? Which bring us to the core issue of how are we going to proceed with the perceive Iranian engagement? Military leaders can not decide on their own how to proceed, that order has to come from the top along with a realization that any attack on a country like Iran can lead to a full blown war which at the end would put more lives at risk.

It seems to me that one more time this administration dreams about attacking Iran and all of the sudden the oppressed people from Iran are going to welcome our bombs with open arms and they are going to rise and deposed their government, that is the same kind of wishful thinking that got us into the Iraq mess in the first place, when debating military operations you should plan for worst case scenarios, something that it seems this admnistration has a hard time going through or they simply just don't care.

This isn't surprising, there was a lot of opposition to the Iraq invasion in the military before we went in, and Bush and his people purged the leadership of opposing views then too...

The far right loves to talk about "supporting the military", but that apparently does not include listening to experienced officers & military professionals when they advise against doing something stupid. (It doesn't include making sure vets get the benefits they're due in return for their service either, but that's a subject for another thread.)